Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04281992 - EA.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS : ., Contra FROM: Environmental Affairs Committee Costa Supervisors Nancy Fanden & Tom Torlakson ' �= County DATE: April 27, 1992 SUBJECT: COUNTYWIDE MOBILE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SPECIFIC REGUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)t BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1) Accept report from the Environmental Affairs Committee regarding implementation by Health Services Department of a countywide mobile household hazardous waste (HHW) collection program beginning in spring.1993 (Attachment 1). 2) Approve implementation of the program,contingent upon receiving approval of at least 50% of Contra Costa cities representing at least 50% of the population in the incorporated area of the County. 3) Approve the total annual cost of the program at $1,590,000 and the use of the landfill tipping fees or transfer station rates as the financing mechanism for the program; authorize the Health Officer to discount the landfill tipping fee or transfer station rates in FY 92-93 and to adjust the rate in subsequent years to meet the annual budget. 4) Direct the Health Services Department to explore other sources of funding to offset a portion of the program costs. 5) Set May 19 as a public hearing date at which time the rate will be adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total annual cost of the mobile HHW collection program will be $1,590,000 (Attachment 2). The start-up costs, including purchase of two vehicles, equipment, and computer system for data collection, will be fully financed with the $140,000 find being paid by Lesher Communications, Inc. for hazardous waste storage violations. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VYES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE 3: ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS W A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWNL / p Q CC: County Admi ni strator l s OfficeTE ATTESTED- � /0 / /a ..Health Services Director PHIL BATC LOR,CLERKOFTHEBOARDOF Health Officer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Community Development Department M382 (10Utegrated Waste Management Task Force BY 'DEPUTY The landfill tipping fee or transfer station rates will be raised by approximately $2.00 per ton to finance the program. This amounts to less than $2.00 per person per year or $0.16 per month. Since the program will not be fully operational in the first fiscal year, FY 92/93, the estimated budget is only $465,000; therefore, the tipping fee or transfer station rate will be discounted 70% -- to about $0.60 per ton -- to reflect the lowered costs. In subsequent years, however, the per-ton rate may need to be adjusted to compensate for reductions in disposal tonnage. BACKGROUND: A. Basic Program Design The basic design of an HHW mobile collection program involves sending a set of vehicles and trained staff out on weekends (both Saturdays and Sundays) to a site in a community, and having residents bring in their HHW to that site. The wastes would be collected, analyzed, packed into drums, and sent off for recycling or disposal at the end of each day. The collection sites would include parking lots of city halls, shopping malls and other appropriate locations. The collections will be by appointment only to insure short waiting times and to provide maximum ability to safely handle wastes. Approximately 200 cars will be serviced in each collection day. The collections would occur on approximately 28 to 33 weekends depending on costs of disposing of wastes, supplemental fuel, and recycling facilities. A total of 11,000 to 13,000 cars would be served. This mobile HHW collection program would run independently of the permanent HHW collection facilities proposed at the various solid waste transfer stations and at Erickson in West County. Each of the three regions of the county can continue to work towards implementation of a permanent facility if they so choose. It is clear at this point that those designing the permanent facilities would prefer to see the effectiveness of the mobile collection program prior to making final decisions about the size of the permanent HHW collection facilities. B. Policy Background On October 8, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the use of the Lesher fine monies for the start-up vehicles and equipment for a countywide mobile collection program. It directed the Environmental Affairs Committee, with input from the AB939 Local Task Force, to recommend an operator and financing mechanism for this program. On December 9, 1991, the Environmental Affairs Committee initially reviewed the materials on mobile collection and requested direction from the AB939 Local Task Force as to whom the operator should be. Two proposals were presented to the Local Task Force for consideration: one from Health Services Department and one from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San). On March 6, the Health Services Department offered a proposal to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Attachment 3), which suggested that the Health Services Department begin operation of the program in spring 1993. The Department feels it is critical to begin a collection program in the county as soon as possible and that the program be run countywide in order to avoid costs of duplication. At the end of eighteen months, Health Services Department proposed to turn over operation of the program to Central San. Central San subsequently responded that it was not interested in operating a program and recommended one of the JPAs as a possible operator. Regardless of the operator, three issues would need resolution, however: (1) A permanent collection facility is constructed and ready to receive HHW; (2) Contracts or agreements are in place to operate the program in all three regions of the county; and (3) A well-developed, written plan for small quantity waste collection is in place which also addresses current private sector efforts to collect such wastes. At its March 18, 1992 meeting, the Local Task Force recommended that the Health Services Department operate a countywide HHW collection program to begin in spring 1993. Ten votes supported this recommendation, with one vote in opposition, and one vote abstaining. The Task 2 Force asked for further budget information and frequent reports on the program. The Health Services Department believes that the mobile collection program will be operational by the spring of 1993. It will operate the program for eighteen months, after which time other operators can be considered. C. Issues Raised by County Administrator's Office The Environmental Affairs Committee, at its December 9, 1991 meeting, requested the County Administrator's Office to review the proposed program. Below are responses to the issues raised in their March 23 response (Attachment 4). 0 1. Participation Rate: How many cars will be served, and what is the justification for serving this number of cars? Between 11,000 and 13,000 cars will be served in the proposed program. The number of cars will be dependent on the amounts and types of wastes received from residents and the costs of recycling and disposing of those wastes. If disposal costs are low, as many as 13,000 cars may be to be served. Eleven thousand cars, served in 28 weekends, represents 3.6% of the households in Contra Costa County, while 13,000, served in 33 weekends, is 4.3%. Typically, collection programs will serve 1.0% to 1.5% of the population for a one-time event. Because we will be returning to cities, communities and regions more often, we will be able to collect more HHW. With good publicity, these numbers of cars seem quite reasonable. In fact, our more likely concern will be one of too much demand. As we begin implementation,we will gain experience regarding how much publicity is appropriate to attract only 400 cars per weekend and no more. While ideally we would like to serve 100% of the households, this does not seem reasonable or affordable. Santa Clara County, with 520,180 households, had arbitrarily limited the cars they served to 10,000 for budget purposes. 2. City Plans: What are cities doing, and should the County determine their plans before finalizing program costs? All of the cities and the County for the unincorporated areas of the county are required to develop written and approved Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs) for their jurisdictions under AB939. All jurisdictions have submitted either Preliminary or Final Draft HHWEs recommending mobile HHW collection as a preferred alternative for collecting HHW. None of the cities have recommended that they implement such a program alone as there are clear cost savings through multi jurisdictional implementation of the program. Under this proposal, the fees will be assessed and the program implemented only after at least 50% of the cities representing at least 50% of the population in the incorporated areas of the county adopt the mobile program. Additionally, an advisory committee, with significant representation by cities, will be established for the program to insure the effectiveness of the program throughout the county and coordination with cities. 3. ' Costs: What monies will be spent in-house versus contracted out? In the proposed annual budget (Attachment 2), almost 85% of the budget will be used to pay an experienced, qualified hazardous waste management firm to manage the collection events and recycle/dispose of the wastes. This percentage is typical of any collection program where the bulk of the costs are not tied up in high capital and internal staff costs. 3 The advantage of contracting out the majority of work to an outside firm is that it gives us greater flexibility in being able to expand or decrease the size of the program. A second issue is that the turnover among technicians which occurs in this field can be handled much more efficiently by the private sector; staff may be replaced very quickly. Because safety depends'on an adequate level of personnel, this is critical. Also, using a firm whose sole business is handling hazardous wastes means that their personnel will receive a higher and more continuous level of training. A final reason for using a contractor is that operational liability, and perhaps even Superfund liability, can be passed on to the contractor, rather than the County assuming it all. This will be addressed in the question below. 4. Liabili : What liability insurance costs will be incurred? Are we prepared to handle liabilities of spills,groundwater contamination,accidents and long-term Superfund clean-up? The January 31, 1992 memo from Risk Management to Health Services (Attachment 5) outlines associated liability exposures. Their recommendations to minimize exposures and liabilities, which we fully intend to implement, include: (1) Complete investigation and documentation on file to insure that all facilities and firms being utilized have all of the local, state and federal permits required and are financially sound with adequate insurance coverage. (2) Contract with an outside hazardous waste management firm to manage the events, and to accept all operational liabilities (spills, on-site incidents) for the program. Hazardous waste transporters would also be required to accept full liability for transportation incidents. Risk Management is also recommending that we negotiate with the contractor to accept "strong indemnification against future Superfund liability." (3) Recycle or incinerate virtually all wastes collected. By doing this, rather than disposing of wastes in a hazardous waste landfill (such as Kettleman Hills), very little long-term Superfund liability would remain. This will cost the program a little more initially, but will leave the County,-which would be accepting full generator liability for all HHW collected, with very little Superfund liability. Every county in-the state implementing HHW collection programs is faced with the same liability issues. It is important to reiterate here that were the county to have no HHW collection programs, HHW would continue to be disposed of illegally as it is now. It is critical to establish a HHW collection program which will keep HHW out of our new landfills, out of our storm drains and out of our sewer systems. D. Summary It is illegal to dispose of hazardous wastes in Class 1 landfills. AB939 requires all jurisdictions in the state to provide plans for collection and public education programs for their residents. We believe that this proposed mobile HHW collection program is a well- developed and sound program which would provide for effective collection at the least cost to the ratepayer. 'Given the high number of requests by residents for legal and proper disposal methods for HHW, we believe it is important to implement this program as soon as possible. cc: County Administrator's Office Health Services Director Health Officer County Counsel Community Development Department Integrated Waste Management Task Force 4 MOBILE COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR COLLECTION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY April 17, 1992 1. Basic Design The basic design of an HHW mobile collection program involves sending a set of vehicles and trained staff out to a site in a community, and having residents then bring in their HHW to that site. The wastes would be collected, analyzed, packed into drums, and sent off for recycling or disposal at the end of each day. The collection sites would include parking lots of city halls, shopping malls and-other appropriate locations. The collections will be by appointment only to insure short waiting times and no long lines, and to provide maximum ability to safely handle wastes. Approximately 200 cars will be , serviced in one collection day. The collections would occur approximately 28 to 33 weekends depending on costs of disposing of wastes at incineration, supplemental fuel, and recycling facilities. This program design is based on mobile collection programs in King County, Washington; Santa Clara County, and San Mateo County. King County's "Wastemobile" consists of a retrofitted vehicle used for office space, identifying unknown wastes, computer, break area for workers, etc. ; a gear truck hauling all needed equipment to the site; and tents for inclement weather. King County, with 1. 3 million people over 2 , 000 square miles, has operated the Wastemobile for two full years. Santa Clara County, with 1. 3 million people over 1, 320 square miles, is modeling their program directly after King County's, although in November 1991 they started up the program without the retrofitted vehicle. Their retrofitted vehicle must be purchased by June 30, 1992 . Contra Costa County has 819, 000 people in 710 square miles. 2 . Site Logistics The mobile vehicles and equipment will set up on Fridays, open for collection on Saturdays and Sundays, and torn down on Mondays. The vehicles will be stored at a county site in between site visits. The sites, to be open seven or eight hours on both Saturdays and Sundays, will be well publicized, particularly through newspapers and local channels. 3 . Sites A very initial, not yet reviewed, list of sites which might be chosen is listed here. Each of these sites would be visited at least once each year. Based on this listing, collections would occur in West County 7 to 8 times, Central County 14 to 16 times, and East County 7 to 8 times. These sites would be continually evaluated to ensure that the program was effectively reaching all residents in the county. West County Central County Crockett/Port Costa/ Martinez/Pacheco Rodeo Solano Way/Hwy 4 Hercules DVC/Pleasant Hill Pinole Oak Grove/Monument Hilltop/San Pablo/ Treat/Clayton Road El Sobrante Geary Rd/680 Toys R Us/E1 Cerrito Oak Grove/Ygnacio Vly East Richmond Clayton West Richmond 680/24 Lafayette East County Orinda Moraga Pittsburg/West Pittsburg Alamo/Danville/South Antioch Walnut Creek Antioch San Ramon Oakley/Bethel Island Brentwood Discovery Bay/Byron 4 . Wastes to be Collected & Disposed The wastes to be collected include used motor oil, latex paint, lead-acid and household batteries, antifreeze, oil based paints and solvents, pesticides and fertilizers, household cleaners, oven cleaners, pool chemicals, art supplies and wood preservatives. Wastes not accepted include radioactive wastes, PCB's, dioxins and explosives. Business wastes are also not accepted. Two full-time, permanent positions will be created: A Hazardous Materials Specialist to oversee the program and to implement a strong reuse program (to keep down costs) ; and a clerical position to make appointments (for 11, 000 to 13 , 000 cars) and handle hotline questions. An outside contractor, experienced in handling hazardous wastes, and fully knowledgeable of hazardous waste laws and regulations, will be hired to analyze and pack the collected wastes into drums, and ship them off for recycling/disposal at the end of each collection day. No wastes will be stored over night at the collection site. The wastes will be disposed of following California's waste management hierarchy of reuse, recycling and disposal through incineration and landfilling. All wastes will be disposed of at licensed, fully permitted facilities. 2 The County, as operator of the program, would act as the hazardous waste generator for the wastes collected from householders, and would thus accept the liability for these wastes. 5. One Vehicle This mobile collection program is designed with one vehicle serving the entire county. Staff believes this one vehicle would provide adequate coverage for the county, given the previous experience in King County, which has triple the size of our county, and a larger population. The King county program is two years old, and is pleased with the service the vehicle has provided. Santa Clara County has also designed their program using only one vehicle. If more than one vehicle were to be used to service the county, staff believes that it would be an unnecessary duplication. 6. No Storage Facility This program is designed without a permanent storage facility. There are three permanent collection facilities being planned for each region of the county. If such a facility were needed for storage of wastes, staff believes that a cooperative relationship could be established with one or all of these facilities to take care of this need. Staff would prefer, to be conservative, and not spend $500, 000 on a storage facility unless it was deemed necessary. King County has a permanent collection facility in Seattle, but none planned for the rest of King County. Their Wastemobile has been operating for two years without a permanent facility, and sees not need for one. San Mateo County runs their mobile collection program without a permanent facility, and currently has not plans for even one permanent collection facility in the county. Santa Clara County has begun their program without a permanent facility. They believe one will eventually be built in San Jose, but know that facility may not be operational for several years. Staff from these counties do not, furthermore, believe there to be any cost savings from having a permanent storage facility. The argument used to justify a storage facility is that you are able to store unusual wastes for up to one year, collect a greater amount of that wastestream, and therefore dispose of it at a lower cost. However, if you are incinerating wastes, and therefore able to use small sized drums (5 or 10 gallons) , there is little cost savings from being able to store long term. 3 7 . Small Quantity Generator Wastes Business producing less that 100 kg. of hazardous waste each month are considered "conditionally exempt small quantity generators" (CESQG) under Federal RCRA (Resource Conservation & Recovery Act) . Under state law, these wastes may be collected at HHW collection programs. Whether or not we would choose to include CESQGs in our HHW collection programs depends on several things: agreement on whether to subsidize this collection in any way, additional costs, and program management issues. (a) Subsidization: Alameda County has chosen to completely subsidize CESQG collection costs; most other counties have not begun to collect these wastes, and are leaning towards no subsidization. The Hazardous Materials Commission has expressed a policy interest in this issue. No clear mandate has been expressed in our county, although many have expressed a reluctance to subsidize CESQG collection. (b) Costs: The additional costs associated with CESQG collection are costs ' of disposal; staff time to collect, analyze/pack into drums/ship; and liability. Even if a business were required to pay the high disposal fees, the staff time required would need to be considered. A countywide door-to-door collection being proposed would include additional costs of a truck; additional transportation liability costs; and at least two full-time staff to pick up wastes from the 1, 000 to 2 , 000 businesses in the county every month, and perhaps another staff person to analyze, pack into drums and ship. At a very minimum, costs for this type of management of CESQG wastes would be $100, 000 per year. (c) Management: Another question which needs to be asked is what is the best way to manage wastes from CESQG? Is it from staffing levels, or could it be done more efficiently and at less cost by requiring CESQGs to bring their wastes into the permanent HHW collection . facilities? These are questions which deserve attention prior to shaping the final management program for CESQG waste collection. Staff believes it important to get the household program implemented prior to adding CESQGs, particularly given the need to have CESQG waste collection be reviewed from both a policy standpoint and a best management practice standpoint. 8. Source Reduction A strong commitment to educating the public regarding the need to reduce their use and purchase of household toxic products will result in fewer HHW needing disposal. County Health 4 Services Department has already taken a lead in source reduction efforts because of staff's belief that we cannot afford to wait to reduce the generation of HHW. Aggressive source reduction should allow us to downscale the size, and thus the cost, of the mobile collection program. This Health Services Department proposal includes an annual $75, 000 to cover a permanent, salaried position, as well as funds needed for educational materials, dedicated to source reduction. 9 . Participation Rates Participation rates in one-day collection events generally hover between 1. 0% and 3 . 0%. By covering all communities in one year, we believe we would see higher participation rates, at approximately 3 .5% to 4. 0%. With effective source reduction programs--the only real way to keep down HHW collection/disposal costs, we would hope to see reduced amounts of waste coming in per household. 10. Costs (a) Capital costs: Capital costs for the mobile collection program will be financed by fine monies levied by Cal EPA's Department of Toxic Substances Control on Lesher Communications, Inc. for hazardous waste storage violations. These monies (approximately $140, 000) will cover purchase of a retrofitted vehicle (to house office space, a computer, a break area for staff, and a area for categorizing hazardous wastes) , a gear truck, a computer system; a portable toilet, emergency shower and cyclone fence; consultant fees (approximately $10, 000 to prepare an operations plan, emergency plan, and variance application; and miscellaneous start-up equipment (tent, visquine, protective clothing, flood lights, electrical generator, and safety equipment) . All vehicles and equipment purchased will be County owned. (b) operating costs: Operating costs have been fairly consistent among collection programs, and are on the rise. A thorough study ("Countywide HHW Collection Program"; September 28, 1990; Santa Clara County Department of Planning & Development) focused on the costs associated with two years of over thirty collection days held in Santa Clara County, and the anticipated collection costs in a mobile collection program in that county. The average one-day collection event costs were found to be $108/participating household; mobile collection costs, using internal county staffing, were estimated at $88/participating household. 80% of the $88 was budgeted for disposal and recycling costs, as well as supplies needed for packing wastes into drums. The other 20% was budgeted for administration, overall equipment needs, etc. Currently, disposal/recycling costs are at $125 to $130 per 5 car, with 90% of the bill going to disposal & recycling. San Mateo County which has not yet converted to incineration for some of their wastestreams, is running at $85/car. Were they to convert to incineration, they might reach $100/car. The staff in charge of San Mateo's program believes the difference is due in large part to the high level of reuse he does with a number of wastestreams. In King County, where costs are lower than California, they have averaged $65 per car. They break down their costs into the following categories: 60.5% disposal; 30.5% labor; and 9. 0% equipment. It should be noted that many of their wastes are not recycled, and that more wastes are landfilled in hazardous waste landfill rather than being incinerated (this is less expensive, but may result in long-term Superfund liability) . We are proposing the following operating costs: The annual operating cost will be $1, 590, 000, which translates into a cost of $5/household/year. This includes $75, 000 for source reduction. $1, 342, 000 will be spent on disposal. At $100/car, this would allow us to serve 13, 200 cars (served in 33 weekends with 400 cars/weekend) . This would represent 4 .2% of the households (assuming one car equals one household) . At a higher cost of $120/car, we would serve 11,200 cars in 28 weekends, or 3 . 6% of the households. (c) Financing System: We are still exploring which of the various financing options availabe would be most appropriate. A transfer station and/or landfill tipping fee to finance the mobile collection program is a primary option being considered. This mechanism would be appropriate given that AB939 gives cities and counties the authority to assess fees to finance implementation of AB939 programs. A financing system we are not considering is the annual sewer charge. This charge would not be considered a direct solid waste charge, and would perhaps be considered a hidden cost. Additionally, an annual sewer charge would create a more cumbersome financing system in that each year all twenty sanitary districts would be required to approve the annual sewer charge. Sanitary districts, rather than cities, would be the lead entities in such a financing system. 11. Advisory Committee An advisory committee will be established to provide for open communications and the most effective program. Staff from a cross section of cities will be sought to plan sites, publicity and other aspects of the program. 6 COUNTYWIDE MOBILE HOUSEHOLD- HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM ONE-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET April 17, 1992 $ 65, 000 Household Hazardous Waste Coordinator Responsible for planning for HHW in Contra Costa, and for writing/revising the HHW Element; for reviewing HHW Elements for the Local Task Force; for the program design and management of HHW source reduction program; and for managing the mobile HHW collection program. 60, 000 Hazardous Materials Specialist Responsible for the overall compliance with health & safety regulations; for overseeing work of contractor; for insuring an agressive reuse. & recycling program; and for selecting and arranging sites. 30, 000 Clerical Staff Responsible for giving appointments to 11, 000 to 13, 000 residents who would be bringing in wastes, and for providing them with legal transportation and disposal requirements, and information on alternatives to more toxic products. 75, 000 Source Reduction: $54, 000 Environmental Health Educator 21, 000 Printing, materials & supplies 15, 000 Advertising 3 , 000 Maintenance of Vehicles 1, 342, 000 Hazardous Waste Management Firm Contractor Responsible for managing the events at each site, and for transportation, recycling & disposal of the wastes; budget based on serving a minimum of 11,000 cars at $122/car; if the recycling & disposal of wastes are less costly, more cars would be served, up to a maximum of 13, 000 cars. $385, 000 On-site labor (chemists & technicians) $35/car x 11, 000 cars 88, 000 Supplies & equipment $ 8/car x 11,000 cars 869,000 Recycling & Disposal of wastes Includes transportation $79/car x 11, 000 cars $1,590, 000 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Contra Costa County ::Fr.511 The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTFAENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR Tom Powers. 1st District Mark Fin ucane. Director Nancy C. Fanden. 2nd District t Robert 1. Schroder, 3rd District" WrightMcPeak. 4th District �'. . 945 Allen Street Sunne .�' - � Martinez. California 94„53.3191 Tom Torlakson, 5th District ^ _7 _ (510) 370-5003 (510) 370-5098 Fax County Administrator Phil Batchelor County Administrator March 6, 1992 Roger Dolan General Manager & Chief Engineer Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Dolan: I appreciated your meeting with me and my staff on Wednesday abouts,'tlie household hazardous waste (HHW) collection program. As I mentioned at the meeting,my overriding concern is that the program be implemented throughout the county and as soon as possible, regardless of who operates it. Therefore, the Health Services Department would like to propose the following compromise proposal: The Health Services Department would implement a countywide mobile collection program, to be operational in the spring of 1993. At the end of 18 months of operation, the county would turn over the program to the Central Sanitary District. However, three issues would need to be resolved prior to the transfer: (1) A permanent collection facility is constructed and ready to receive HHW; (2) Contracts or agreements are in place to operate the program in all three regions of the county; and (3) A well-developed,written plan for SQG waste collection is in place, which includes a budget and addresses how it will integrate current private sector efforts to collect such wastes. We are recommending this compromise proposal because it is imperative that a mobile collection program be implemented as soon as possible. Last fall, the Health Services Department canceled collection days because we believed that the money could be better utilized for a permanent program. We cannot delay any longer and continue to expect residents to refrain from inappropriately disposing of their HHW. Based on our discussions on Wednesday, your proposal currently includes a number of uncertainties. First, it is dependent on a permanent facility-- either at Central Sanitary or at Acme. Since that decision is still under discussion, implementation of the program could be delayed. Second, Central Sanitary is not prepared at this time to collect HHW countywide, which we believe is an essential requirement of any program. Third, a number Merr•tnew Memorial Hospital 8 Clinks • Public Health Menta: Heaar Substance At'USC • Environmental Hea!it • contra Costa Heattn Pian Emergency Metltcai ServiceE Home Heaar Agenci • Ge,auics of policy and budgetary issues regarding SQG remain to be worked out. The proposed compromise would provide you with the time to resolve these three issues without needlessly delaying the program. It is our intention to make this proposal to the Public Information Committee of the AB 939 Local Task Force at their March 13, 1992 meeting. Sincerely, Mark Finucane, Dector Health Services Department MF:BM:no cc: Board of Supervisors Phil Batchelor Paul Morsen Sue Rainey Robin Bedell-Waite Barbara Masters Tim Potter William B. Walker, M.'D. 2 MAR-23-1992 16:14 FROM TO 62073 P.02 Contra Costa County OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez , CA 94553 X10/646-2764 Date; March 231, 1992 To: Robin Bedell-Waite Fm: 4kdray Rathwell Management Analyst Re: MOBILE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM As you are aware! the Environmental Affairs Committee (EA) asked that our office review the cost projections presented in a report by Health Services to the EA in December 1991, and provide the . Committee with our own comments and recommendations regarding the accuracy and validity of those figures, In February, after careful review of the proposal and several discussions with you and staff of Santa Clara County's Hazardous Household Waste Collection program, I still feel that the following questions and concerns should be addressed and clarified: 7 PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATE How many cars will the County serve and what is the basis for projecting 15,000 participating households thh)per year when Sacha Clara, with 40% more houscholdc (520,180 compared to the County's 3059306) served an average of approximately 10,000 hh, cities and County programs combine for 1990. CITIES What are the cities doing? Shouldn't the County dctarmine the intention of the cities before finalizing the program costs and annual charge per household? REVIEW OF COSTS- IN--HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO SERVICE. PROVIDED FAST-SIDE What is the total cost of operating a Mobile Household Hazardous Waste program inhouse as opposed to contracting the service out? MAR-23-1992 16:14 FROM TO 62073 P.03 BUDGET/L,IABIL.ITY A budget needs to be developed outlining all costs includina liability i nsurance coverage. Of major concern is tht! patenti a2 liability the County could Incur under the Federal Superfund Law. Since we will have exposure to spills, ground contamination and accidents resulting from failure to secure containments how is the County prepared to handle this? I will be happen to attend the next EA meeting and hear your presentation to include revisions to your original proposal on this subject. Please let mac know the dater time and place. If you have any questions regarding my concerns, please contact me at extension 6-2764. cc: Sara Hoffman Tony Enea Claude VanMarter GsNNNM—�pt7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT Administration Building,6th Floor Martinez, California VE70 January 31, 1992Q8 r C0171ra C 0�la L 17tal TO: William Walker, M.D. , Director, Environmental Health Attn: Robin Bedell-Waite, Household Hazardous Waste Collection Coordinator FROM: Joseph J. Tonda, Risk Manager By Sandra Van Slyke1;7:Sr--^.;­--Insurance Analyst SUBJECT: Household Hazardous Waste Mobile Collection Program T'his is a complete revision of previous memo dated January 13, 1992 of the same subject. This memo is in response to your memo of December 17, 1991 requesting review of the liability exposures associated with the Household Hazardous Waste- Mobile Collection Program. An internally staffed program will have associated expenses for workers' compensation and liability claims. The physical work involved in operating the mobile collection .program will expose employees to back injuries, wrist injuries and of greater concern exposures from highly noxious materials. Exposure to liability is greatly increased. Collection sites have a potential for spills, ground contamination and accidents resulting from failure to secure containment. Transportation of hazardous waste has a potential of spill accidents which could be very expensive to clean up. Of major concern is the potential liability the County could incur under the 'Federal Superfund Law. Entities disposing of hazardous materials in Class 1 Hazardous Waste Landfills may eventually be liable for Super Fund clean-up costs associated with contamination of those sites. Contra Costa County would be considered the generator of waste collected from the households in the mobile collection program, and if disposing in these landfills, may be liable for Superfund clean-up costs. In order to reduce the liability under the Superfund, the following loss prevention steps are recommended: 1. Hazardous waste should be primarily disposed of through recycling or incineration rather that disposal into Class 1 Hazardous Waste Landfill. -loll I 111 1101 1111 ell 2. All facilities used for disposal (recycling, incineration, fuel blending, or Class 1 landfill) must be fully permitted to operate by the State. Complete documentation should be required to verify disposal at such facilities. 3. Investigate offsite disposal companies to be used by calling EPA and state agencies to ascertain their enforcement records and then visiting their disposal facilities. Check the disposal companies' financial condition and insurance coverage. Once the best vendor is selected, negotiate a contract demanding strong indemnification against future Superfund liability. There are other matters such as hazardous waste transportation permits and licenses which should be addressed in program. Because there may be legal issues to consider, we recommend that County Counsel review the program. Because of the increased workers ' compensation and liability exposures to the County, Risk Management recommends these exposures be avoided by transferring the risks to independent contractors. If the risks are transferred to independent contractors, a request for proposal should be reviewed by County Counsel and Risk Management to ensure that loss prevention measures are required to prevent potential future losses. Should you have any questions or need further information, do not hesitate to contact me on extension 6-4110. SV:py cc: Tim Potter, Health Services Louise Aiello, Community Development William Walker, M.D. , Health Services Tony Enea, County Administrator' s Office Sondra Rothwell, County Administrator' s Office Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Attn: Lillian Fujii, Deputy County Counsel i